Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#31

Post by nickthegreek »

frizlab wrote: post #26
jeffbee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.

Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.

Nothing is keeping congress from creating and managing a citizen video hosting service for its people. The US government does after all allow competition against the United States Postal Service. What they shouldn't do is annex existing platforms.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#32

Post by orev »

sangupta wrote: post #22

Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.

The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.

I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#34

Post by LightHugger »

jeffbee wrote: post #21
exabrial wrote: post #6

> and it left the door open to requiring the company to spin out Android, too. Hell yes. Next YouTube!

Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.

Youtube can buy those services from google as an independent entity, like everybody else. Not profitable enough? Good. I see a lot of people who don't understand that is not a side effect, but the point of antitrust action, to destroy business models that are only competitive as loss leaders for another arm of the monopoly business. Finally we'd get closer to fair competition between video platforms.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#35

Post by LightHugger »

branon wrote: post #4

Who do you sell _Google_ Chrome to? This seems ill-advised. Who could possibly run it? Oracle? Broadcom? Is Elon Musk going to buy it and then we'll have X Browser? None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now. On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?

The point of antitrust action is exactly this, to destroy noncompetitive business models like chrome and allow true competition to thrive between actors in a free market. Given that you do not seem to understand the core point of antitrust i'm not sure you're in a position to judge it as ill advised.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#36

Post by jeffbee »

LightHugger wrote: post #34
jeffbee wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain how that would work. YouTube cannot exist without Google. It gets a free ride on Google infrastructure, software, and R&D including custom silicon. If it had to pay nondiscriminatory prices for network, compute, and storage then it simply would not exist. I can't see how that benefits the consumer.

Youtube can buy those services from google as an independent entity, like everybody else. Not profitable enough? Good. I see a lot of people who don't understand that is not a side effect, but the point of antitrust action, to destroy business models that are only competitive as loss leaders for another arm of the monopoly business. Finally we'd get closer to fair competition between video platforms.

It's not a loss leader. It makes a huge amount of money, but only because of its tight integration with Google infrastructure. It is not an abuse of a monopoly any more than it would be for an oil refinery to sell both diesel fuel and petrol.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#37

Post by red016 »

jacobp100 wrote: post #8
branon wrote: post #4

Who do you sell _Google_ Chrome to? This seems ill-advised. Who could possibly run it? Oracle? Broadcom? Is Elon Musk going to buy it and then we'll have X Browser? None of these options seem likely to create anything better than what we have now. On the upshot, Firefox is going to see a resurgence. Hey, maybe Mozilla buys it?

The exact opposite. Mozilla is no longer allowed to receive a payment from Google to be the default search engine, and that payment was 90% of their revenue

Google destroyed Mozilla by giving them free money until they became lazy and incompetent.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#38

Post by [deleted] »

nickthegreek wrote: post #31
frizlab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.

Nothing is keeping congress from creating and managing a citizen video hosting service for its people. The US government does after all allow competition against the United States Postal Service. What they shouldn't do is annex existing platforms.

[deleted]

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#39

Post by robbiewxyz »

I'm surprised to see so much confusion here. Google pays some kind of "market rate" to Apple to be default search engine on iOS, this change'll first and foremost result in them paying similarly to be default in Chrome.

Hopefully through that Google will end up with less influence to force anti-consumer decisions, like the recent adblock downgrades, on Chrome.

Fair enough, right? Of course all this is assuming decent oversight by DOJ, not allowing the sale to someone with monopolistic incentives of their own, e.g. Microsoft.

Re: DOJ says Google must sell Chrome to crack open its search monopoly

#40

Post by frizlab »

jeffbee wrote: post #28
frizlab wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that type of service should not come from a private entity. In an ideal world our taxes would pay for these services and the government would provide video hosting. Same goes for map business searching and co BTW. This must not be from a private entity. But it is, because the government is not competent to do it.

Government YouTube: easily the worst idea I've heard in years.

And the fact that it is a bad idea (I agree, it is!) says a lot about the trust we have in the government and their competency, sadly…

That being said, it’s basically TV before the internet.

Post reply on HN